Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Obama Administration and Muslim Brotherhood; why the same narrative about the movie?

In the days after the September 11th attacks of 2012, practically every senior member of the Obama administration insisted that the reason for the riots / attacks could be traced back to a 'disgusting' and 'reprehensible' video that the Muslim world found insulting. As they say, the dam has broken on that narrative.

As more senior administration officials use the word “terrorism” in describing the deadly September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s repeated insistence five days later that the incident was a “spontaneous reaction” to an obscure anti-Islam video continues to draw scrutiny and criticism.

Fox News reports that administration officials knew within 24 hours that the Benghazi attack was terrorism.

Since we now know that President Barack Obama Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and White House spokesman Jay Carney all lied about the crudely produced Innocence of Muslims video being responsible for riots, we deserve to know why.

Charles Krauthammer makes the very credible case that the reason for the deception had to do with the fact that five days prior to 9/11, at the Democratic National Convention, the President's party spiked the football repeatedly on the Obama administration's crowning achievement - the killing of bin Laden.

Consider another reason, whether exclusive or in conjunction with what Krauthammer charges. Does the administration embrace the idea of blaming the video for the same reason the leaders in the Muslim world do - to attack free speech? It's quite clear through a litany of examples that when it comes to the U.S. Constitution, this administration sees it as an obstacle and if there is one thing that is standing in its way, being called out on its lies is definitely front and center.

We already know why the Muslim world is blaming the video. The Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt, Mohamed Mursi, told us while at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) this week.

It's about going after Americans' first amendment right of free speech.

So, the Obama administration lied about the video being responsible. By adopting that lie in the first place, it aligned itself with the likes of Mursi and the radical elements of the Muslim world.

Again, why would the Obama administration lie while taking the side of the Muslim Brotherhood in the commission of that lie?

One of the many elephants in the room here is Mursi's connection to the mother of Hillary Clinton's closest adviser, Huma Abedin. Mursi's wife (Najla Mahmoud) and Huma's mother (Saleha Abedin) represent two of the 63 leaders within the Muslim Sisterhood. This is relevant for at least two reasons. First, we know the administration - to include Hillary Clinton herself - lied about the video being responsible for the attacks. Second, it was the same lie being pushed by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Again, in committing this egregious lie, the administration aligned itself with the Brotherhood on yet another issue.

Why, why, why?

Here is Mursi's not so subtle suggestion that Americans should not be allowed to exercise their freedom of speech when it comes to Islam.